• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • New Administration Report Gives Few Details on Sequestration's Military Cuts

    The White House is attempting to use the U.S. military as a bargaining chip to force Congress to raise taxes—the looming “sequestration” budget cuts were never supposed to happen, because Congress was supposed to come to a budget agreement.

    Now the military faces deep, across-the-board cuts. The President has attempted to pass blame on the impending cuts to the House of Representatives, as it passed the bill that set sequestration in motion. However, as journalist and author Bob Woodward indicates in his new book, the Administration instigated the idea of the budgetary measure to gain political ground. Furthermore, the President’s own defense budget request would dramatically shrink the defense budget.

    According to a congressionally mandated report released today—a week past the deadline—by the Obama Administration, discretionary national defense funding will be reduced by 9.4 percent under a regime of automatic spending cuts scheduled to start in January. Yet the report does not shed much light on what future forces will look like. Regardless of how the Obama Administration accounts for the cuts, the fact remains that it will severely undermine the military’s ability to protect the nation. (continues below chart)

    The report results from bipartisan concern in Congress this summer about the impact of the crude enforcement component of last year’s debt ceiling agreement, the Budget Control Act. Its across-the-board “sequestration” was triggered when the congressional “super committee” failed to recommend any of the $1.2 trillion in 10-year deficit reduction that was required.

    Until passage of the Sequester Transparency Act, which required today’s report, the Administration had been reticent on how the spending cuts would be implemented and what impact they would have.

    The most crippling effect will be on national defense, which will absorb roughly half—$492 billion—of the mechanically driven cuts. Meanwhile, the badly designed mechanism protects the biggest drivers of federal deficits and debt from cuts: Social Security (which will spend an estimated $768 billion this year), Medicaid ($253 billion), and all but 2 percent of Medicare ($550 billion). Those three programs account for nearly 45 percent of total federal spending, yet they are all nearly untouched by sequestration—forcing deeper cuts in other areas.

    The House Armed Services Committee has already illustrated sequestration’s effects, and they are bleak. The Navy will shrink to its lowest fleet size since 1915. The Air Force will be forced to operate with fewer fighters than at any point in its history. America will have a smaller ground force than at any point since 1940.

    Unlike the Clinton Administration’s military drawdown, sequestration will weaken an already eroded force. While Clinton reduced the robust force built by the Reagan Administration, the current state of the U.S. military is far more vulnerable. The Air Force, Navy, and Army are each currently operating old, overused, and sometimes poorly protected equipment and weapons systems.

    Lawmakers should not tout the Department of Defense as a massive jobs program. However, the skills, experience, and clearances required to build the greatest military in the world are sensitive to rapid changes in funding. A master welder working on a nuclear submarine has spent years to develop his or her craft; if such workers leave the industry, it takes years to replace them.

    It doesn’t take a report from the White House to see how sequestration will harm national security. Congress needs to act quickly to reprioritize the defense cuts—without raising taxes—and uphold its constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense.

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    5 Responses to New Administration Report Gives Few Details on Sequestration's Military Cuts

    1. Bobbie says:

      there's no excuse to compromise the American government's sole purpose to America.

    2. Julia says:

      This is worrisome. We have the wrong goals it appears. We should be spending to build and protect the nation. We need to more jobs and fewer people at home waiting for a paycheck from the government. I feel I am surrounded by people who are just collecting their cut of what they so rightfully haven't earned. 3 neighbors, all having different excuses, are on welfare for more than a couple of years. 2 of my grad school friends are on food stamps. What a great idea, Free money! People need to be held accountable for their own successes. I know there are people out there who sincerely need help. But there are too many, who feel entitled because they are not sitting comfortably. I haven't been out of a job since I was 13 years old. My mom took an extra job delivering papers in the middle of the night when I was younger. We made things work. These are not people who are worried about how they are going to fed tonight. These are able-bodied people who a) are just lazy or drug addicted or b) just collecting an additional bonuses to their already comfortable lives. Because they can. You should have some sort of job to be on welfare, don't waive the work requirements . What are people really doing to get back on their feet? Or are they back on their feet.
      I hope we can tighten up on the policies of who receives money instead of bargaining with the security of the nation.

    3. John G says:

      If all our military equipment is so old, what do we spend our "defense" money on? We still spend more than the next 10 countries combined, and we'll still spend far more than any other country after these cuts (which are reductions in future increases, not baseline cuts, no?).

      • Ken Marx says:

        The answer in this case is NO! These are real cuts. The Obama administration has eliminated several programs designed to replace obsolete equipment. Sequestration and other proposed defense cuts are not only eliminating necessary equipment upgrades, but also impacting the number of active duty personnel and the livelihood of retirees who have given years of their lives in defense of freedom.

    4. Doyle says:

      I have never heard of a country being attacked for being too strong. Congress should be committed to provide for the common DEFENSE. Give the military what it needs to get the job done and brought to a successful conclusion.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×